robotwarsfandomcom-20200215-history
Talk:Robot Wars: The Third Wars/Archive 1
Ok I've added battle reports for Heat A. Before I continue with series three I just want the 'go ahead' to say I can carry on with it. I can also add battle reports for other series as well. I've made sure this one is consistant and as far as I can tell it's no different from the semi-final battle reports. If it still doesn't meet the mark can I at least be told before its deleted? CaptainAlex 21:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC) :Surely it would make much more sense to get the go-ahead before adding anything? That's the only reason I removed the fight info. And, to be honest, the write-ups were not very professional at all. Those write-ups were "reviews", not encyclopedia columns. Too much slang, nowhere near as much detail as Christophee's, and how can you PROVE that Suicidal Tendencies vs Raizer Blade was THE undisputed best fight of the night? That's a review. This is a Wiki. Not a place for personal opinions. CBFan 22:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC) : Well yeah I get that but I figured if I got the go ahead and then posted stuff that people didnt like (i.e. raizer vs. suicidals etc.) I thought this just cut out half the trouble but clearly not. And sorry but 'nowhere near as much detail' didnt you just bollock me for putting too much detail on the other page. I respect your comment about personal opinions and reviews etc. but I said that if its not up to the mark TELL ME and I'll edit it. 'Welcome to the Robot Wars wiki the site ANYONE can edit' except for anyone who deviates slightly from the will of CBFan. You know what anything on this website I can find in the back of 'Robot Wars The ultimate guide' If your just going to laud it over me and dictate what I can and can't post then why should I bother contributing? Why didnt you just make a wiki that noone but you can edit? Your not even being reasonable. CaptainAlex 23:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC) :Will you PLEASE refrain from the stupid personal attacks and blatant lie telling!? It's getting on my nerves. You're clearly just making up lies about me because you can't get what you want. I CLEARLY told you why your write-ups were uninformative and in the wrong style, and what do you do? You throw a tantrum. "The Ultimate Guide" is one massive piece of rubbish, with one bit of nonsense after another. I've tried to be reasonable with you, but you're really getting on my nerves with your lie telling. Also "Your not even being reasonable"....what? What is a "Not even being reasonable" and what about mine? CBFan 06:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)CaptainAlex 18:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC) : Sorry I'M GETTING ON YOUR NERVES you didnt have to get involved in this at all. If the write ups were that bad surely the moderator could have done something about it. And stop calling me a lie teller everytime I express the slightest opinion. I CLEARLY told you that if write ups were uninformative tell me and I'll edit them why didnt you just do that? You havent been reasonable at all everytime I post anything you delete it with no discussion whatsoever. How is that being reasonable?CaptainAlex 15:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC) ::That's NOT what you said. You said "Your not even being reasonable". Unless you can tell me what a "Not even being reasonable" is and what my "Not even being reasonable" (which I don't have) has to do with this discussion, I can't understand what you're on about. "You're not even being reasonable" is much more understandable, although it is STILL a blatant lie, as it "You delete everything I post without discussion"...which I CLEARLY did. You're just being a sore loser, because I told you EXACTLY why both of your items were deleted, and Christophee agrees with me. You're the one not being reasonable here, not us. So stop with the blatant lies, accept the facts and try again when you perhaps understand a little better that it would be better to get the go-ahead BEFORE attempting to write anything up. CBFan 17:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC) : When I say your not being reasonable I mean you could of given me the courtersy to do what I said when I started on this one I said quite clearly 'If my material is not satisfactory message me and ill do what I can to sort it out' Why couldn't you just do that? And give me one example of a blatant lie cos you keep singing this same tune and I don't understand what your talking about. And don't say that I'm the unreasonable one I left the argument over the first wars cos it was going nowhere and when I started on this one I said what I was going to do and that if it wasn't good enough what you should do to change it. Why do you have to jump down my throat about it Why couldn't you have just done what I said you should would it have cost you any extra? You could have just messaged me saying 'Your reports have too much slang in them and they are more like reviews either edit them or they will have to be deleted' is it unreasonable to request that? If you had just done that I wouldn't have minded it being taken down as long as I was told before it happened and given a chance to repair the damage.CaptainAlex 18:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC) :: AGAIN, what IS a "not being reasonable"!? For heaven's sakes, answer the question and stop avoiding it You keep saying "Your not being reasonable". My not being reasonable...what about it? And what IS it? Because when you say "Your", you're saying something that belongs to me, but because I don't know what this magic "Not even being reasonable" that you claim is mine is, I have no idea what you're talking about. You clearly told lies about me when you said I deleted everything just because I don't want them. I explained that doing the battles BEFORE you got the go-ahead was a bad idea, and that was why I removed it. I explained it quite clearly. And then you flew off the handle screaming about a so-called "Not being reasonable" that I don't even HAVE. Will you either EXPLAIN what this non-existant item is, or just accept that you can't always get everything you want. CBFan 18:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC) : I believe I told you to give me an example of a blatant lie because I never said that you deleted it simply because you didn't want it. I understand your reasoning for taking it down, ok and I accept the reasons for doing so but as ive told you three or four times being reasonable would have been to talk to me about it before deleting it since it would have cost you nothing extra to do it, it would have spared us the argument and it would have improved the Wiki. I've explained clearly already why I added a (minimal) amount of detail without getting the go ahead.CaptainAlex 18:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC) :: You didn't say that, you said "Your not being reasonable"...which means nothing because I don't even know what one is, let alone own one. You keep answering the question as if you said "You're not being reasonable". Basically, you're missing some vital grammar. And you DID say that, so don't deny it. CBFan 18:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC) : Look I'm getting fed up of this now so forget everything else, just tell me one thing. Why is it unreasonable for me to ask that should anyone feel the need to delete material, message the person who put that material there and say whats wrong with it and give them a chance to improve it BEFORE deleting it?CaptainAlex 19:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC) :: I'd answer this question, but seriously, what's the point? Christophee's answered it below. CBFan 20:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC) : Look I really don't want to argue anymore I just want to sort the situation out cos its getting a bit extreme now. You said I lied by saying 'You deleted my contribution because you didn't want it' I won't necessarily deny it but if I said that I simply meant that you wanted to delete it for the reasons you've posted I didn't mean to imply that you simply wanted it off so I apologise for that ok? :If Christophee doesn't want me cluttering up the series article or any other series article then I'll accept that too but tell me what can I do to contribute to the Wiki otherwise? :My third thought is that I feel that if any information has to be deleted from this article or any other articles because its not clear, encyclopedic or well contructed then ok I accept that as well it can't stay on the page but can't the deleted information be copied and pasted into a message to the contributer, because then it's not on the page but at least the contribution isn't lost and it saves arguments like this. Any thoughts on this? CaptainAlex 15:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC) :Lost? This is a Wiki, the information can NEVER be lost. 11:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC) : Ok fine the contribution is lost, the fact is I spent time putting it all up which is why I was annoyed that it was taken down, I'm letting it go and im not going to argue about it anymore because I'm bored to tears of the same arguments and im sure you must be too, I'm simply asking that if the situation arises again then the contribution be posted back to me or placed on the talk page so that if I want to improve it and if its ok with the moderator I don't have to start from scratch. I mean this way everybody wins its not on the page anymore but at least I havent completely wasted my time and it could be salvaged into an acceptable encyclopedic report. CaptainAlex 17:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC) :The contribution is not lost. You can easily find it again on the article's history page. That's how I found the content that was deleted from The First Wars and moved it to the new article. Just click on the date of the relevant version of the article on the history page. Christophee 00:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC) ::To be honest, I don't think we should add any extra information to this article or any other series article because it completely clutters them up. As I said on the talk page for the first wars, any expansion to these articles should be restricted to new articles and only if the information is clear, fully encyclopedic and neatly constructed. If we're going to add more battle summaries, they have to be clear and detailed otherwise we might as well not bother, but I don't want them cluttering up the main series articles. Christophee 22:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC) T-Wrecks In the video of Haardvark vs Henry, behind the Haardvark team in the pits we see a robot called T-Wrecks. It wasn't in any heats, or side events so anyone know anything about it, I can only assume that it didn't qualify. Llamaman201 (talk) 18:10, November 20, 2009 (UTC) :It probably didn't qualify, like you said. Helloher (Death is not my phone number) 18:16, November 20, 2009 (UTC) Side events According to Team General, there were featherweight, lightweight, superheavyweight and sumo competitons all cancelled after a crewmember was injured. Should we mention this? Helloher (Death is not my phone number) 19:27, November 20, 2009 (UTC) :Seems like an interesting thing to mention. I'm not sure where it would go though. Christophee (talk) 02:55, November 21, 2009 (UTC)